The mainstream media narrative, initially, was that a right wing Tea Party supporter acting under the orders of Sarah Palin had assassinated a sitting member of Congress. Precisely none of that was true or even close to true, but it didn’t keep the media from pushing a particular narrative about it for some time. (It wasn’t the biggest religion story, per se, but see our posts here, here and here) I also wrote a post about the role that alternate realities played in the shooting and media coverage of same. The shooter was said to engage in alternate realities. But, I argued,the same might be said of the media, feverishly trying to create a world where political opponents could be blamed for the most brutal crimes imaginable even if the facts didn’t support that.

For days the media focused on the need for civility, and how this shooting was the result of conservative political rhetoric. Some media outlets suggested that campaign and battle words be avoided when talking about politics. See, a PAC associated with Sarah Palin had put out a map with races to “target” and had identified those “targets” with crosshairs. The Atlantic Wire highlighted some of The Atlantic‘s writers on the matter in a piece headlined “Did Sarah Palin’s Target Map Play Role in Giffords Shooting?”

M0llie lists many more stories from the MSM exploring the possible connection between conservative rhetoric and the Giffords shooting — this, even though it emerged that the shooter, Jared Loughner, was profoundly mentally ill, and neither Palin’s rhetoric nor anybody else’s had a thing to do with this shooting. There were even pieces (e.g., a Psychology Today essay Mollie links to) exploring the role that violent rhetoric plays in creating an atmosphere in which acts like Loughner’s take place. The media flooded the zone, in other words.

But now? Here’s Mollie:

So yesterday, Floyd Lee Corkins II pleaded guilty to three criminal counts involving his August 2012 attack on the Washington D.C. headquarters of the Family Research Council. He told the FBI that he picked his target from a “hate map“ (!) on the web site of the Southern Poverty Law Center. That’s the liberal group that is frequently used as a legitimate source in news reports (I sort of thought they jumped the shark when they identified “pick-up artists” as hate groups but this Reason archive might be worth a read for developing a tad of skepticism of their treatment by the media).

OK, so we have a real criminal who cites a real “hate map” as a key factor in his violence. How do you suppose the media treated that story?

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 72 comments

72 Responses to SPLC Vs. Sarah Palin: Media Hypocrisy

The Southern Poverty Law Center is neither concerned about the law or poverty. It is basically a Left Wing shake down organization that scares little old ladies into donating to their organization by saying that there is a Nazi behind every bush.

Reality, as usual, is a bit more nuanced than that (pardon my French). SPLC began with a focus on helping populations subject to genuine terrorism and slightly less violence but still odious forms of manipulation and intimidation, mostly people of African or Jewish descent, and remember, in those days, the Klan still hated Catholics also. I’ve heard some Klan remnants have decided Catholics are white people, and eligible for membership. I’ve also read that many Catholics were offended to hear it.

Anyway… from these laudable beginnings, SPLC seems to have branched out, partly perhaps motivated by the usual organizational imperative of finding something to do to justify the next fundraising cycle and avoid laying off staff… and now it has a long list of “hates” that really shouldn’t qualify.

For example, as I’ve argued many times, for any person or organization to suggest that homosexual acts are Not A Good Thing, for medical, biological, or religious reasons, is legitimate speech, not to be blithely denounced as “bigotry.” Conversely, people who disagree have a right to say so without being castigated as demons from the pit of hell.

So, maybe SPLC’s time is past, or maybe it needs to refocus on its “core mission,” and no, I don’t want my name on any “Wall of Tolerance.” I recall that Martin Luther King, Jr. said “I don’t like the sound of that word. I don’t want anyone to tolerate me. I want my rights under the Constitution.”

Now Red Phillips, if you could stop spluttering long enough to exercise some thought… you might have gleaned from my etc. ad absurdum that I wasn’t really rating my opinion any higher than yours… just highlighting that for any of us to mount a soap box and splutter an opinionated statement is not particularly edifying to anyone.

But as for separate but equal demonizing, everyone nattering about this “liberal media,” everyone who denounces a “gay agenda” that is taking over the country, everyone who despises liberalism but hasn’t read a word about William Gladstone… are all running about the same level of mindless “hate speech” as SPLC is being accused of.

Oh, the longing for comfortable martyrdom among the comfortable would-be Christians of the modern world!

Like Engineer Scotty says, the way to fight speech is with more speech.

Andrea says: “I looked over the Family Research Council and its materials pretty closely last summer after that shooting and I was hard pressed to find anything on the site or in the statements of its leaders that would make me call it a hate group.”

The FRC published a report claiming pedophile = homosexual. Despite the report being discredited, the FRC still makes the claim. It was not the first false report. Tony Perkins has been a regular on cable spreading false information about gays and other things. The FRC was started by James Dobson – do a search on PolitiFact for his false statements. http://tinyurl.com/alp9yub (FRC background)

Prof Herek, has been an expert psychologist in gay issues an hate crimes. He has testified in a long list of court cases going back many years. Herek testified in a Prop 8 case about the FRC report claiming most pedophiles are homosexuals.

Find “What About Claims That Scientific Research Proves Gay Men Are Likely To Molest Children?” on the below link for the testimony that goes through the nine supposed scientific research in the FRC report.

“In summary, the scientific sources cited by the FRC report do not support their argument. Most of the studies they referenced did not even assess the sexual orientation of abusers. Two studies explicitly concluded that sexual orientation and child molestation are unrelated. Notably, the FRC failed to cite the 1978 study by Groth and Birnbaum, which also contradicted their argument. Only one study (Erickson et al., 1988) might be interpreted as supporting the FRC argument, and it failed to detail its measurement procedures and did not differentiate bisexual from homosexual offenders.”

Yeah the SPLC really is a mirror image of the shady right wing direct mail scene, a bunch of cynical hacks getting rich by whipping naive marks into a lather jumping at ghosts, and then asking for money to “protect” them.

Coldstream’s onto something in re: Dorner, the (ex-military, ex-police) guy hunting cops down around LA. If you read his manifesto, he calls on people to respect the President and pass stricter gun control laws. His issue is police brutality towards minorities – and he’s probably on to something, Portland and Seattle basically called in the DOJ to bust union skulls over shooting a handful of guys in the past few years, I remember around LA the cops would often get that many in a weekend – but it’s worth keeping an eye on how *that* gets spun.

Bobby says: “It’s my understanding that FRC is identified in that way because they have allegedly engaged in spreading false propaganda against gay people (e.g., falsely suggesting a causal connection between homosexuality and pedophilia).”

“We believe the evidence shows … that relative to the size of their population, homosexual men are more likely to engage in child sexual abuse than are heterosexual men.”
— Peter Sprigg, “Debating Homosexuality: Understanding Two Views.” 2011.
=================

This is not hatred.

If you found that men are more likely to engage in child sexual abuse than women, it wouldn’t mean that you hate men. Just as if you found that heterosexual men are more likely to engage in child sexual abuse than homosexual men, it wouldn’t mean you hate heterosexuals. The FRC’s assertions cannot be characterized as hatred simply because they point out problems in the behavior of LGBT people.

Liberals believe in a dogma that says “homosexuals are just like heterosexuals In Every Way.” Any time anyone points out there is any kind of discrepancy, liberals have a meltdown because their narrative is challenged. Reality is irrelevant.

sexual promiscuity, (don’t know generally, but certainly true for sub-groups)
sexually transmitted diseases, (CONFIRMED FOR HIV AND SYPHILIS – MALES)
mental illness, (?)
substance abuse, (?)
and domestic violence, (CONFIRMED)
it too qualifies as a behavior that is harmful to the people who engage in it and to society at large.”

This isn’t hatred. It’s reality, a reality that liberals don’t like to face, so they shoot the messenger.

FRC’S SPRIGG: [Parents of Boy Scouts] have a right to protect their children from the potential risk of child sexual abuse at the hands of men who might be attracted to other males.

CNN’S COSTELLO: Well, I’ll just say that the American Psychological Association has studied the issue you just mentioned: “Homosexuals are not any more likely to molest kids than straight men.” Unless you’re condemning every single homosexual in the country as being a possible pedophile, that’s not fair.
=============
The problem is heterosexual men do a lot of abuse and molestation. “Not more likely” still means a serious molestation and abuse problem. That’s a lot of homosexuals and bisexuals abusing and exploiting adolescents – especially boys.

This is what liberals will not face.

(Not to digress too much, but since when is the APA a credible research organization regarding homosexuality?)

Palin and conservatism in general was roundly criticized over a map that was held up as an exemplar of each but that had absolutely nothing to do with the horrific event that was used as the pretext for the criticism. The same people who did that have not and will not criticize the SPLC and liberalism for a map that was actually used in a fortunately bumbled attempt at causing more horror.

I think this fairly raises questions of bias. Even after reading the thoughtful comments here about why the latter map may be ok and the former not, I don’t think it’s obvious that the questions aren’t fair.

I don’t recall that any mainstream news organizations averred that Palin’s tacky campaign fliers prompted Loughner to shoot Rep. Giffords. At best, certain reporters speculated as to whether the debased (and dishonest) nature of political dialogue during the 2010 mid-term elections may have contributed to Loughner’s conduct.

I did a Google search of “Sarah Palin Giffords 2011,” and from what I see, questions like “Did Sarah Palin’s Target Map Play Role in Giffords Shooting?” and statements like “Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ blood is on Sarah Palin’s hands after putting cross hair over district” seem to have been the basis for quite a few headlines at that point, even though the shooter gave no indication that it was part of his motivation.

With Corkin, he specifically stated that he used SPLC’s “hate map” to locate his politically-motivated target, and yet, the media as well as commentors here seems awfully skittish about recognizing any sort of connection.

Linda, I’ve seen that claim made and some of the statements made by the director of the group on one of the news networks in reference to the Boy Scouts and whether they should accept gay troop leaders. He said something to the effect that he wasn’t saying all homosexuals are abusers, but he apparently does see some connection between homosexuality and abuse of underage boys, which is why he advocated leaving the ban in place. That does occur and an argument could probably be made that some aspects of homosexual culture may wink at such relationships with teens and older adult men, though it certainly happens with heterosexual adults and adolescent girls or boys as well.

I don’t agree with the group’s point of view but I do know what data they’re using to draw their conclusions.

And Heather, on her blog (where she seems to be “Alessandra” btw)…sees homosexuality and pedophilia as strictly liberal v conservative. Try this sentence (in the post ‘The destruction of the BSA by the homosexuals)…”Liberals are gleefully throwing under the bus all the youths who will be sexually assaulted and molested by homosexuals in this future BSA.”

So, not pedophiles will be defiling the scouts, but homosexuals. And, its ordained to be so….(who *will* be…..)

And, I guess this is a given too: “It turns my stomach that this is what people with a homosexuality agenda want to inflict on innocent boys. At the same time, they would never let young men be the leaders for girls – and the reason is very simple: it’s a measure of protection for the girls.”

Now, my camping days were a while ago. My two or three YMCA-sponsored canoe trips (early high school years) were not only coed, but had coed leaders. Wow, think of the potential in Heather’s world!

Her blog posts are all about the ‘homosexuality agenda’ –hint, another liberal only thingy. I guess Heather can’t comprehend that the same-sex marriage campaign was actually started (to the disgust of liberal ‘homosexuals’) Andrew Sullivan. A Conservative. Because marriage is a conservative institution. Hence David Cameron introducing same in Britain/Wales. As a Conservative.

As Matt says, and as does Heather: “Where do you get these commenters, Rod?”

Goodness.
I have seldom read so many comments by people interpreting events to suit their needs as on this thread.
We are all entitled to our opinions but we are not entitled to our own facts.
Unfortunately, when I read the attacks on the SPLC, (child molesters? Seriously?) the ‘proof’ about how homosexual=pedophile, the conclusive ‘evidence’ of how homosexual men are so bad they can only be pedophile, I am forced to the conclusion that this website has far, far to go in achieving the stated aim of battling epistemic closure.

Rod, if this is the level of argument your side is presenting to rational people who are not conservative Christians, then it is no wonder you are losing. If you were to substitute ‘Bush 43’ for ‘homosexual’ in many of these comments, I bet we’d agree with each other that the writer was suffering from Bush-Derangement-Syndrome.

I would suggest that between any two demographics, there MAY BE some significant differences, which may or may not be inherent in the specific factor that defines the difference.

For example, women may not be as inclined to become engineers as men, but it doesn’t mean they are inherently incapable of it.

If all FRC says is, scientific studies seem to show homosexual men are more likely to commit pedophilia than lesbians, or hetereosexual men or women, that’s not, per se, hate speech.

If they made up facts twisted legitimate research, made the statement mendaciously, with the goal of limiting the legal rights of men who are homosexually inclined, that would be a different story.

Both claims have been made here. I’m not clear that either side has unambiguously proved the other wrong. But I do have a sense, formed over the last several years, that FRC has an agenda, and would rather win its point than be scientifically accurate.

I also find credible the point that Noah and M_Young have made that neither gay men nor lesbians seem as likely to REMAIN in stable, life-long, monogamous unions as heterosexual couples. (As we know, the latter is something of a low bar to begin with). This suggests that homosexuality is not so much an IDENTITY, as a variation on a theme, and not necessarily one we really need to accommodate, although not appropriate for persecution either.

Anyway, nobody is facing up to the sociological implications of the evidence that homosexuality is induced by mercury poisoning.

There’s nothing wrong or immoral or shameful about the SPLC’s map. Crazy is crazy, no matter what website you’ve consulted. The evilness of the “hate map” idea is used speciously in this commentator’s article (I mean, I bet the FRC has a similar map; I know the NRA has a rather amusingly thorough list of “gun enemies”).

But I agree with Rod’s point about media bias. It’s true; everyone was quite happy to broadcast the idea that there was a connection between Palin and the shooting in Tucson, when, really, there wasn’t. I mean, the gun+elections rhetoric was definitely present, but beyond that tenuous thread there was zero connection. And absolutely, many mainstream media outlets will, when given the opportunity, capitalize on the fact that the Conservative/Christian viewpoint is generally perceived (by non Fox media consumers) to be backward or strange or violent, particularly to a younger generation of media consumers.

But, you know, they do it to themselves. Palin was manna from heaven for the MSM! And what about that upright fellow who heckled the president during the state of the union speech? Our own dearest Heather is a prime example. It starts to seem kind of funny, kind of fun to ridicule, this endless stream of rage, paranoia, xenophobia. It’s why Karl Rove’s breakdown on election night, though actually pretty trivial and inconsequential, meant so much to the MSM: it embodied everything Conservatives get wrong about the media, and about media consumers (other than the Fox news/over-70 set). Yeah, the MSM absolutely takes advantage of that (websites like wonkette or gawker follow the concept to its extreme conclusions).

There are certainly plenty of embarrassing wackjobs on the left, but, unlike a Karl Rove or (for a while) Sarah Palin, lefty wackjobs rarely speak for or can claim to represent the entire party/movement. Reasonable voices for the conservative-Republican right, like Rod’s, say, are very few and far between. I think both conservatives and the MSM shoulder some of the blame for this.

And, in retrospect…was there really a cover-up about the Corkin/SPLC connection? When the guy was apprehended, my husband asked me if I’d heard about the crazy gunman who had targeted a list of conservative groups identified by the SPLC…and my husband is not someone who follows the news very closely. He’d probably heard a story about it on NPR on his way home from work. I wonder if Hemingway looked at the news stories from when Corkin was first arrested, rather than just the ones describing his sentencing?

As for her suggestions of all the questions CNN or the Washington post “should have asked,” demanding that the media find this or that group morally responsible for “the first shooting in the culture war”…well, that’s just her own ideological ax to grind. If she wants to elaborate on the connection, she should call up the SPLC herself. But it’s pretty clear that Floyd Corkin was not on the SPLC’s payroll.

Andrea says: February 8, 2013 at 8:52 am, in reference to Tony Perkins, Family Research Council (FRC), “He said something to the effect that he wasn’t saying all homosexuals are abusers, but he apparently does see some connection between homosexuality and abuse of underage boys,”

Did you even read the information in the document released by the FRC that claimed the majority of pedophiles were homosexuals? The report listed research that in no way supported the claim. There behavior was not in accordance with Christ’s teachings. Jesus never said the ends justify the means (making people dislike/hate gays). Perkins is currently very active in outreach to religious groups to oppose the Boy Scout ban. He influences what other people think by using the mask of a Christian.

In the below video (2-6-13) Perkins said there was a higher incidence of homosexuals abusing boys, which is not supported by any research. He was asked why Boy Scouts were abused when the homosexual ban was in place. He stammered through a no answer response.

Do some research on Perkins. Before employment at the FRC, he gave speeches to white supremacy groups (early 2000).

I have previously included links to multiple research that found the incidents of homosexuals was lower than heterosexual, although psychologist do not think the majority of pedophiles fit into either the homosexual or heterosexual label because they are fixated on children. Recent research has found pedophiles can be determined at a 95% or higher rate with brain imaging. Brain imaging research also found that homosexuals do not response to pictures of children in the same pedophiles response. The brain imaging research provides an explanation for why pedophiles have not responded to various treatments. It is something they are born with and they need to be locked away until a successful cure is found. Until something like brain scans are available to screen for pedophiles, there is no current method to identify a pedophile that does not have a criminal record.

As I said before, I see nothing wrong with the hate map. As Linda and others have noted, FRC seems to have a history of launching dishonest and inaccurate smears against gay men. In that sense, the FRC is much more in line with groups like the KKK. There are plenty of socially conservative groups that have not resorted to such dishonest tactics.

Blaming SPLC for the shooting would be akin to blaming Google Maps for a bank robbery because the robber used the service to find his target.

In other words, when I say that there is a significant and real problem of battering in the LGBT community, confirmed by every social science study I’ve seen, including dozens conducted by people with a homosexuality agenda, you write that I think that *all* LGBT individuals are batterers.

When I write that there is a significant problem of same-sex sexual harassment in environments that have normalized homosexuality, you write that I think that *all* LGBT individuals are harassers.

And you just keep making the same extremist distortion for every problem raised.

Your formula is always the same: If we point out that a significant number of LGBT people have a certain problem, confirmed by research, testimonies, etc., you say, “but she said ALL of us have the problem. Look, look, she’s a conservative bogeyman stereotyping us! I told you, I told you, she has such an extremist stereotype of us. I don’t care if she didn’t write “ALL,” my strawman of what she wrote is the only thing I have to tear down, so I’m full speed ahead with making these strawman arguments. ”

That’s called making an extremist caricature in order to thwart the discussion and the focus of the problems raised.

Looking up banks on Google Maps is not the same thing as a security company posting a map of banks with the worst security.

But is Rod blaming SPLC and liberal hate for the terrorist attack on the FRC , or is he asking why people who were falling over each other to blame Palin and conservative hate for the attack in Arizona somehow managed not to jump to conclusions this time? Even with an actual link.

Now, my camping days were a while ago. My two or three YMCA-sponsored canoe trips (early high school years) were not only coed, but had coed leaders. Wow, think of the potential in Heather’s world!
==============
In other words, some of us go through life in complete denial that problems exist of sexual exploitation, harassment, and abuse, and some of us inform ourselves on these issues, including the BSA’s Perversion Files.

And according to the way of thinking of Linda and Clamdigger, anyone who suggests that heterosexual men abuse more than homosexual men are “deliberately and maliciously engaging in Hate speech against heterosexuals.”
Because comparisons can never be made that show any differences between any group, otherwise it’s Hate speech.

As Matt said, just ask who/whom and get it over with. Oh, you’ve found that homosexuals are worse about something? Disregard all data; it’s hate speech and it cannot be true.

Yes, but most of us wouldn’t have a problem with someone identifying banks with the most lax security, as long as the statements are true and do not rely on confidential information. Sure, bank robbers may use the information. The goal, however, would be to encourage such banks to beef up security and remove themselves from the list.

The same goes for the FRC and SPLC. SPLC relied on publicly available information when it classified FRC as a hate group. FRC was not classified as such merely because they oppose gay rights. No. FRC is classified as a hate group because they allegedly seek to achieve those ends by publishing damaging and false information about gay people, particularly gay men. SPLC’s goal is not to punish FRC merely for being opposed to gay rights. Rather, the goal is to encourage FRC to conduct its affairs in a manner that does not unfairly disparage the gay people as a class.

You protest a bit too much. You’re clearly attempting to suggest that your anecdotes are evidence of a material distinction that’s to be made between gay people and non-gay people. Otherwise, there’s no point in proffering the anecdote. In that sense, you’re like the playground bully who tells his victim, “Stop hitting your face against my extended fist.”